In among the column yards devoted to Thatcher's troll Forsyth in the Sundays I noted a wee sidebar or two. Except the Sunday Herald in which it received a more prominent place than the "walking party political broadcast" for non-Tory parties.

The problems appear to be the same as they have been.

IMO the media and parties on both sides need to make a conscious effort to channel energy into the two official campaign bodies - Yes Scotland and Better Together.

If there's anything that can be agreed upon it is surely that party politics and machinations attached to them, for myriad reasons, turn most people off. IMO it will be easier for those public figures who are engaged to attach themselves to these campaign bodies rather than political parties. Or, in other words, to allign themselves to independence or union. If the parties continue to dominate the campaign at teh expense of Yes Scotland and Better Together then a lot of people may choose not to engage at all.

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 6:52:50 PM)

But in the real world the SNP is a major factor in the debate. And unless they come clean on things like legal advice and facts and figures there can't be a constructive one.

We're maintaining policies we can't afford because the SNP need to give the appearance of things going well for a short time more - we just don't have the money. Student fees eg - the amount of support that's been cut to maintain that is nigh on obscene now.

If the argument isn't going to be in the real world then all the problems around the discussion will remain I think.

Ghidorah -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 7:23:04 PM)

I think they should change the question to ' Do you think Alex Salmond can safeguard Scotland as an idependent state?'

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 7:36:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

But in the real world the SNP is a major factor in the debate. And unless they come clean on things like legal advice and facts and figures there can't be a constructive one.

We're maintaining policies we can't afford because the SNP need to give the appearance of things going well for a short time more - we just don't have the money. Student fees eg - the amount of support that's been cut to maintain that is nigh on obscene now.

If the argument isn't going to be in the real world then all the problems around the discussion will remain I think.

Absolutely agree. Transparency is vital. Unlike '74, '79.

As for policies enacted by this Scottish government being indicative of policies enacted by future Scottish governments, well, I don't think that's credible. Voting one way or the other based on the performance of this Scottish government seems nonsensical to me.

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 7:37:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ghidorah

I think they should change the question to ' Do you think Alex Salmond can safeguard Scotland as an idependent state?'

Why Salmond?

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 7:39:26 PM)

But it can't not be. It's the SNP that will take this forward and the current record based on the current spending available is a crucial part of this argument. No other party is pretending there's any money anywhere else, quite the opposite. So unless there's honesty on what's in the post then any discussion is nonsense.

This can't be an abstract discussion on nationhood in the real world - the main question is simple. Can Scotland survive economically - everything else is pointless.

Ghidorah -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 8:19:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

But it can't not be. It's the SNP that will take this forward and the current record based on the current spending available is a crucial part of this argument. No other party is pretending there's any money anywhere else, quite the opposite. So unless there's honesty on what's in the post then any discussion is nonsense.

This can't be an abstract discussion on nationhood in the real world - the main question is simple. Can Scotland survive economically - everything else is pointless.

What Scotland residents need to remember is, not only will they be independent from the rest of the UK but the EU as well. I find it very frustrating the EU doesn't have a say in this. The EU has enough on it plate as it is. They don't want another fragile state entering their union when already it's struggling dealing with others. The SNP are foolish to think the EU will give them membership on the dot and nobody will able to assist when things goes bad.

I have no problem with Scotland finding it own feet but it's far too risky to go independent now.

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 8:32:27 PM)

What Scottish voters need is someone to go around yelling 'GREECE' in their ears for the next two years.

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (15/10/2012 10:31:12 PM)

Yes Scotland can survive economically. Even the BBC say so.

Greece? Why not NORWAY? Or DISTOPIA? Or TPLEC (Tin Pot Little European Country)?

What voters of the world need to go around screaming is "REGULATION", "PAY YOUR TAXES", "PUBLIC SPENDING DID NOT CAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRASH", "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY"...

"But it can't not be." Can't not be what? About Salmond? Salmond is a man, a man who is far from certain to be in government in the immediate future of an independent Scotland that would be independent for the lifetime of a man with a suped up DeLorean. There are socialists, Christian democrats, liberals, light-touch Tories, apoliticians, pro-European, isolationist... all manner of folk supporting an independent Scotland.

As far as I can see, and I've only heard the word occasionally in the debate, the idea would be to have a written "constitution". Agreeing on one of those, diverse as the nation is, will be nigh on impossible unless the foundation of it is a few - probably abstract - "universal truths". The governance of the country in the centuries following would seem as uncertain as in any country. Did any of us imagine in '97 that we'd be here? Not just in terms of devolution but in UK politics. This will be a vote to create a state to be governed, not perennial nature of its government.

Affording benefits, health services, "free" education etc seems to me to be dependent on tax revenue (added to possibly the interest earned on any Noggy style oil/energy trust fund). That seems to me dependent on governance rather than anything else.

As for the EU... no doubt it needs clarified. Barroso says Scotland would have to apply, not that Scotland would be denied he has also said that a "solution would have to found" in the hypothetical event of a "region" seceding from a member state. A Brussels spokesman suggested Catalonia wouldn't have to apply if it seceded from Spain - presumably before Spain denied the Catalans a vote on their independence. Academics have said that the EU would support Scottish membership. Is there a huge difference between automatic membership and an accepted application? Is Euro membership demanded or is it merely an agreement to join the Euro upon the meeting of criteria? One of these criteria Sweden have simply refused to pass - that of joining the ERM. Could Scotland do the same? Like I said, clarity is needed.

NATO... tricky. Not sure the SNP's position is coherent. Not sure "Yes Scotland" has one. I feel the UK's position on nuclear weapons is bonkers.

Tendency on both sides to pass off argument and opinion as fact.

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (16/10/2012 12:29:19 AM)

Found an interesting snippet on Youtube. At the end of a panel on British politics focusing on UK/US relations but broadening from there the irrepressible Christopher Hitchens uttered the following:

"... As de Gaulle said of the greatness of Brazil 'It's always something in the future and that's where it will remain'. The people involved don't have the nerve to do it, or the guts, and they also know that the consequences would be greater than they are prepared to reckon with."

He then compared Scotland to Quebec in that the disparate groups would pull in different directions and then:

"... it would complicate hugely their relations with the European Union which is the only reason that they have enough prosperity to be getting on with to begin with."

"It is by no means a certainty, it seems to me, that an independent Scotland could count on staying within [the EU] without having to reapply and perhaps have to take another look at itself in the mirror."

So. There we have it. Through a mixture of crashing bottles, a lack of intestinal fortitude, an unwillingness to behold our visage, irreconcilable disunity (ironically ensuring our continuing presence within a union) and a reliance on others for what prosperity we have the Scots will vote No. Not even a slight possibility of a Yes.

We should put this thread on ice until the white paper next year. Everything until then is just going to be white noise.

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (16/10/2012 4:05:03 PM)

[image]http://m.uploadedit.com/b003/1350345693590.gif[/image]

But I like this.

Ghidorah -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 12:27:41 AM)

A few days ago Alex Salmond attacked the Tories government in his speech. We all know what the Tories are doing so there no point in highlighting it. However Alex Salmond made a convincing case for Scotland independence. The residents of Scotland could be free from these out of touch, upper class benefitting decisions.

A few days ago Kermode was promoting You've been Trumped on his blog. Anyone who doesn't know, it's about Donald Trump somehow able to build a golf resort on protected dunes. These dunes are very rare and now they are even rarer.

I had seen the film and it doesn't paint the SNP in good light. In fact it shows they can't be trusted because they are happy enough to ignore people liabilities in favour of a billionaire. We also shouldn't forget they gave the go ahead for sand dunes to be bull does over for a golf resort in it place.

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:47:38 AM)

"bull does" [:D]

Deary me. That'd be "bulldozed" as in flattened by a bulldozer. Not gored like a straggler in Pamplona, nor smashed like china in a shop. Yes the Scottish government backed Trump's development. As did Aberdeenshire Council. And of course no other political parties have bent or broken rules or emptied the public purse. Does that discredit the Union? Indeed, who's to say that regulations in an independent Scotland would not be strict enough and efficiently enough enforced to prevent such a development allowed to proceed in the current Union?

Once again, criticism of the SNP is fair enough. However, it does nothing to argue against an independent Scotland. It certainly argues against an independent Scotland being shaped solely by the SNP (or any single party).

Anyway, interesting polls in the Sunday Times. 37% Yes, 45% No. Likely Labour UK gov in 2015: 33%/50%. Likely Tory/Tory-Lib gov: 52% Yes. Men more likely than women to vote for independence in the three scenarios given. The gender difference surprises me. The importance of the Westminster government frustrates me. Short termism. It's about more than that surely. It's a mindset that "Yes Scotland" needs to change.

edit: the media love a dig at the SNP for the date of the referendum being 700 years after Bannockburn yet the the link to the beeb's section on their website about Scotland's future features a Saltire and silhouetted statue of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn. Gave me a chuckle.

Chief -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:24:04 PM)

Is it wrong that I'm Scottish, of voting age and couldn't really give a rat's ass about this? I haven't read anything concrete that would make me vote either way so I probably won't bother.

matty_b -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:31:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Is it wrong that I'm Scottish

Yes.

boaby -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:36:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Is it wrong that I'm Scottish, of voting age and couldn't really give a rat's ass about this?

Yes, I think so. I find it bizarre too.

Chief -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:52:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Is it wrong that I'm Scottish

Yes.

Knob. [:D]

Chief -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 4:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Is it wrong that I'm Scottish, of voting age and couldn't really give a rat's ass about this?

Yes, I think so. I find it bizarre too.

Care to expand?

Ghidorah -> RE: Scottish independence debate (22/10/2012 5:56:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

"bull does" [:D]

Deary me. That'd be "bulldozed" as in flattened by a bulldozer. Not gored like a straggler in Pamplona, nor smashed like china in a shop. Yes the Scottish government backed Trump's development. As did Aberdeenshire Council. And of course no other political parties have bent or broken rules or emptied the public purse. Does that discredit the Union? Indeed, who's to say that regulations in an independent Scotland would not be strict enough and efficiently enough enforced to prevent such a development allowed to proceed in the current Union?

Once again, criticism of the SNP is fair enough. However, it does nothing to argue against an independent Scotland. It certainly argues against an independent Scotland being shaped solely by the SNP (or any single party).

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have no problem Scotland going independent but the question is are they ready? I also have some interest in bounderies laws and You've been Tramped brought up this issue on a regular bases. I know laws relating to bounderies differ slightly in England and Scotland. What I saw in this documentry is one of the worst cases I ever seen or read.

The reason why I brought up the documentry because it highlighted serious corruption issues in the SNP and the police force. The Aberdeen Council rejected Donalds Trumps idea of turning an important site of huge value into a golf resort and it was the SNP who overturned it. Then it raised the question why and how the police force in the area happen to be bias towards Trumps. Like I said I have some interest in bounderies laws and what I saw was corruption. This isn't an attack on Scotland independence but the documentry does raise some serious concerns about the SNP.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have no problem Scotland going independent but the question is are they ready? I also have some interest in bounderies laws and You've been Tramped brought up this issue on a regular bases. I know laws relating to bounderies differ slightly in England and Scotland. What I saw in this documentry is one of the worst cases I ever seen or read.

The reason why I brought up the documentry because it highlighted serious corruption issues in the SNP and the police force. The Aberdeen Council rejected Donalds Trumps idea of turning an important site of huge value into a golf resort and it was the SNP who overturned it. Then it raised the question why and how the police force in the area happen to be bias towards Trumps. Like I said I have some interest in bounderies laws and what I saw was corruption. This isn't an attack on Scotland independence but the documentry does raise some serious concerns about the SNP.

Are they ready? Who is they? Scots? Or the SNP?

If lack of corruption is a necessary requirement for proof of readiness for statehood the UK is phucked. Over 1k police officers reported to the IPCC in connection with Hillsborough - actions tolerated, nee encouraged by Thatcher's government. South Yorks police in the poop again for behaviour - egged on by Thatcher's gove - during the miner's strike. Met cover ups galore concerning wrongful deaths and phone hacking. The "sexed up" dossier shoring up parliamentary support for the removal of Saddam. Etc, etc, etc. 300 years of corruption. 1000 more years before that.

Also, it was Aberdeenshire Council. Not the City.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (23/10/2012 4:23:09 PM)

The SNP are having the sort of week that even Cameron dreads.

sanchia -> RE: Scottish independence debate (23/10/2012 5:19:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

quote:

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have no problem Scotland going independent but the question is are they ready? I also have some interest in bounderies laws and You've been Tramped brought up this issue on a regular bases. I know laws relating to bounderies differ slightly in England and Scotland. What I saw in this documentry is one of the worst cases I ever seen or read.

The reason why I brought up the documentry because it highlighted serious corruption issues in the SNP and the police force. The Aberdeen Council rejected Donalds Trumps idea of turning an important site of huge value into a golf resort and it was the SNP who overturned it. Then it raised the question why and how the police force in the area happen to be bias towards Trumps. Like I said I have some interest in bounderies laws and what I saw was corruption. This isn't an attack on Scotland independence but the documentry does raise some serious concerns about the SNP.

Are they ready? Who is they? Scots? Or the SNP?

If lack of corruption is a necessary requirement for proof of readiness for statehood the UK is phucked. Over 1k police officers reported to the IPCC in connection with Hillsborough - actions tolerated, nee encouraged by Thatcher's government. South Yorks police in the poop again for behaviour - egged on by Thatcher's gove - during the miner's strike. Met cover ups galore concerning wrongful deaths and phone hacking. The "sexed up" dossier shoring up parliamentary support for the removal of Saddam. Etc, etc, etc. 300 years of corruption. 1000 more years before that.

Also, it was Aberdeenshire Council. Not the City.

Although the fact that there has been corruption within politics does not make it acceptable for it to occur. It then makes it an option of the evil you know or the evil you do not. It should be a case that if presenting an alternative it should be an alternative which at the start gives the appearance of being clean. this may be an idealistic stance but if they are presenting a corrupt front at this stage what could they potentially turn into?

Is it just me being a bit dense (which I will hold my hands up to and admit), but why would you go and instigate legal proceedings to stop publication of legal advice you claimed to have obtained instead of just saying "Not asked for any legal advice yet, but it's on my to-do list"?

Smart Alex and wee Nicola were actually telling the truth? The media and unionist opposition: "Yaaaaaaaaaasss! We've got 'em, we've got 'em. Editors, break out the big fonts!" I suppose it's created some amusing noise, and used up a fair volume of ink that needed using.

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (27/10/2012 1:59:17 PM)

Seriously? You're not seeing the desperate play on semantics to pretend there have been no glaring contradictions here? [:D]

This is a fairly obvious play to find something they could define that might match both Salmond's statement to Neil and Sturgeon's statement to Parliament. If that actually is successful I fear for the common sense of my fellow voters. If this was actually true it doesn't remotely explain the stumbling claim and counter-claim they managed in the 48 hours prior to it.

sanchia -> RE: Scottish independence debate (27/10/2012 2:05:54 PM)

I think we may be reading that differently. I read it as saying that Salmond implied that he had more information which was positive than he actually had whilst in reality he did not have that information and had not obtained the legal advice at that time?

elab49 -> RE: Scottish independence debate (27/10/2012 2:52:17 PM)

That's exactly the ambiguity I think they're banking on.

They realised their initial denial was sheer stupidity - because the next question was then, obviously, and why the hell are we spending tax payers money on court cases then?

And re that - the SNP claim they've spent £4k of taxpayers' money on this court case which, given everyone is perfectly aware how expensive legal cases are, sounds utter bollocks to me. I'm betting that, at the very least, they're not including public sector employed lawyers time in that fiddle of a number.